Whats the exact % of income tax........

[xafier 10]

Originally posted by fnkysknky

It's not that daft an idea - there's various schemes around where people have gone back to bartering systems. I've read about a few but can't remember where they are off top of my head.

 

as a student I do it all the time... want your PC fixed... cost ya a pint or two set up a network, your daughters hand in marriage

[Cyclone 10]

Originally posted by Jamie

Thank you, thank you!!

 

Of course, the rich would be paying more tax though Tubthump.

 

I don't understand you're objections and your comments re: free rifle, steed, hound, bla bla bla.

 

It's not a question of creating a system, that's better for the rich, or better for the poor. It's about having a system that's better for the country as a whole.

 

But if you want to talk about what's fair ...

 

Fair, would be to tax everyone 'x' amounts of pounds, not dependent on income, say £4000 each, no matter if you earn £10k or £10m.

 

That would be 'fair'. Having a tax free allowance and a flat rate of tax, is actually unfair to the rich.

 

you must have some very weird idea of what 'fair' means.

[Jamie 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

you must have some very weird idea of what 'fair' means.

 

Why?

 

Infact cyclone, I actually think there is no such thing as 'fair', life certainly isn't. It just a word people use to try and get their own way.

[Kristian 11]

Sony, this site might be useful to you. I checked it on my salary and it's spot on accurate!

[Cyclone 10]

Originally posted by Jamie

Why?

 

Infact cyclone, I actually think there is no such thing as 'fair', life certainly isn't. It just a word people use to try and get their own way.

 

fair is just an abstract concept that we made up, but that doesn't stop there being a common definition or working meaning.

I don't see how you could call a fixed amount of income tax, ie £8000 a year fair in any sense. A fixed % for everyone, yes you can argue for that, and indeed I might, but not a fixed amount.

[Jamie 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

fair is just an abstract concept that we made up, but that doesn't stop there being a common definition or working meaning.

I don't see how you could call a fixed amount of income tax, ie £8000 a year fair in any sense. A fixed % for everyone, yes you can argue for that, and indeed I might, but not a fixed amount.

 

Lets consider 3 schemes.

 

a) A fixed rate of tax, say £8,000.

 

b) A fixed % of income tax (possibly with a tax free allowance).

 

c) A sliding scale or 'banded' % of income tax.

 

Each scheme is progressively worse for the rich and better for the poor.

 

The guy earlier in this thread, was arguing that 'b)' wouldn't be fair (and that 'c)' would). I was just illustrating where it falls in the range of possible taxation schemes.

 

I think 'b)' would be better, because I would benefit under it, and also I think it would probably be better for the nation generally.

 

I don't think 'fair' comes in to it cyclone, at the end of the day, it's a case of what's going to work best, and do the country the most benefit.

[Grissom 10]

Originally posted by cgksheff

....Somewhere is an organisation that calculates our total tax burden and I think that it is somewhere between 50% & 60% of income.

 

The Adam Smith Institute calculates 'tax freedom day' - this year it was May 31st - five months of the year working for the government and society.

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/tax/short-history.php

 

Average family pays 25.7 % of earnings as tax

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/tax/your-family.php

 

 

 

[Hels 10]

Whatever tax system is used there is one basic fact - you have to be earning it to pay it.

 

Only by working and earning can you have any hope of improving you standard of living.

 

There are a small number of people who are still caught in 'the benefit trap' which means they are unable to get employment which makes them appreciably better off than they are on benefits. These are most likely to be people who have rent and the majority of council tax paid, have several children and get the full range of benefits allowable.

 

National Insurance was originally set up to pay for the state provision of the National Health Service and Unemployment Benefit.

 

When we consider how quickly developments in the medicine and technology supporting medicine and health care are emerging, it isn't difficult to see how the costs of the NHS are spiraling - whether they treat larger or smaller numbers of people.

 

The trouble with a system where everyone expects the best is - it costs a lot of money, so we all have to pay towards it. It really irritates me when people constantly complain of how much tax they pay, but never bother to acknowledge everything that the tax goes towards paying for.

[t020 11]

Originally posted by Tubthump

Oh yes, spot on, spot on. Why should the rich even pay tax at all? After all, successful business men are giving people jobs (who pay taxes) and so are contributing to the economy indirectly. A fair system would be to set a rate of 90% against any incomes under £15,000 a year. The poor won't mind, they're used to struggling. Anyone with incomes over £40,000 should be rewarded with a free rifle, steed, hound, jodpers and bugle.

 

Am I spot on too t020?

 

 

No, you're missing the point completely. Yes, rich people would pay less income tax. This encourages enterprise and hard work. But people on lower incomes would either be paying less tax or the same amount, and the admin costs of the whole system would be vastly reduced. Just wait until Germany adopts the flat tax to rejuvenate their economy (failing in part as a result of the Euro).

[fnkysknky 10]

T020, If rich people are paying less tax and people on lower incomes are paying the same or lower then where does the difference come from? Or does that difference somehow magically equal what it costs to administer the current system?

 

I'm not saying it's a bad idea but some figures would be nice.

[t020 11]

Originally posted by fnkysknky

T020, If rich people are paying less tax and people on lower incomes are paying the same or lower then where does the difference come from? Or does that difference somehow magically equal what it costs to administer the current system?

 

I'm not saying it's a bad idea but some figures would be nice.

 

The savings in administration would be significant. I'm not an economic advisor, but David Cameron has commissioned a study into the flat rate tax and how it would/could work for this country. More details about admin savings and what exactly the personal allowance would be should emerge in the months to come, but it certainly looks interesting and countries across the EU are adopting it.

[Tubthump 10]

Well if certain people completely missed the point of my post, maybe i need to be less oblique. Plain and simple: if you earn more, you should pay more. Just because you choose a profession that is geared towards individual capital gain doesn't mean you "work harder" than a nurse or a teacher or a policeman or a care worker or an nhs doctor etc etc etc- all on more modest income brackets. £40,000 a year is a lot of money and it's not asking much to up your donations to the state when surpassing that amount. I think those an lower incomes should pay less if anything, offset by the true spongers of this country all happily residing in their tax free exinstences on the channel islands. Tax loopholes like that should be abolished.